9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -08-2014/26-08-2014 when the cheques were issued, rather he had resigned from his position long-back on 7.10.2013 and his resignation was accepted vide Annexure P/5. Notice was also issued in the news paper on 24.10.2013 i.e., prior to the issuance of cheques in question. As per provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act, a Director can be held liable on the principle of 'vicarious liability', but there must be specific averments against the said Director showing as to how and in what manner, he was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, but in the case in hand, the facts are totally otherwise because the petitioner was not the Director of the Company on the date of issuance of cheques in question, rather ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.2014. 2. Learned Magistrate on the basis of material before him, passed the summoning order, dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure P/11). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is neither signatory to the cheques nor he was Director of M/s. Lakhani India Limited (for short, the Company ) at the relevant time. Rather, he had resigned from the said company long back on 7.10.2013 and copy of the resignation letter was available on the file as Annexure P/1. The said resignation was accepted by Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide Annexure P/3. Relieving report (Annexure P/4) was also issued on 5.12.2013 i.e. Much before the date of issuance of cheques in question. Even in the reply to the legal notice, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent petitioner and as such, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. On this point, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gunmala Sales Private Limited v. Anu Mehta and others, 2014(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 788. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that most of the facts are not disputed that the petitioner is not signatory to the cheques in question. He was not Director of the Company on the relevant date i.e., 20-08-2014/26-08-2014 when the cheques were issued, rather he had resigned from his position long-back on 7.10.2013 and his resignation was accepted vide Annexure P/5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
